Defense spending should be cut, reallocated for education

Ever stop to compare the lifestyles of the rich and famous with
that of the U.S. military? For example, if you are rich, you can
afford to purchase a luxury car, which will set you back at least
$60,000 or $70,000 (in other words, more than most Americans make
annually). If you want to buy a house in a nice neighborhood, you
can spend more than a million dollars. Yep, things sure are
expensive these days. Now try this price tag on for size: one
CVN-77 nuclear aircraft carrier, sells at $4.7 billion.
That’s billion, with a “b” (http://www.clw.org).

How can the military afford to spend such an outrageous sum of
money for a single aircraft carrier? Well, if your annual budget
was $300 billion, a few billion here and there really
wouldn’t faze you, either. And if President Clinton had just
guaranteed you a $112 billion budget increase over the next six
years, you would be even less concerned.

As the Council for a Livable World’s Education Fund points
out, U.S. military spending remains at Cold War levels even though
the Cold War has been over for years. What’s more, the
Pentagon continues to adhere to an absurd, antiquated policy that
aims to “prepare” America to fight two major wars
simultaneously; military officials use this to justify our
excessive defense budget.

It is important for Americans to understand the impact which
this superfluous military budget has had on our lives as students,
voters and workers. A close examination of federal budget
priorities shows that the Pentagon’s spending simply cannot
be justified. Perhaps more significantly, such an analysis also
indicates a dramatic need for increased funds for vital social
programs, especially education, which are currently being
overshadowed by our overwhelming military spending.

Proponents of an expanded or sustained military budget argue
that money is needed to strengthen recruitment and retention
programs and to “counter emerging threats such as terrorism
and the use of weapons of mass destruction” (http://www.clw.org). But as Robert
Borosage of the Campaign for New Priorities once noted, even if
America cut military spending by half, the United States would
still be spending at least four times as much as any other nation,
and much more money than the developing nations often unjustly
branded as “terrorist” countries.

Among these so-called emerging threats are Iran, Iraq and North
Korea, the Pentagon’s favorite “rogue states.”
Each of these nations maintains a meager military budget totaling
between $9 and $20 billion a year. If we recognize the fact that
Clinton’s budget calls for a $12.6 billion increase in
military spending for this year alone, it becomes clear that our
would-be adversaries do not practically have the resources to mount
the type of offensive which Pentagon lobbyists are constantly
worried about.

Statistics like these reveal why many experts and senior
officials have been calling for a smaller military budget for
years. Recently, former CIA director William Colby and Reagan
Defense Planner Lawrence Korb both stated that the U.S. defense
budget should be cut by $100 billion or more. The fact that even
the trigger-happy Republican analysts from the Reagan “Star
Wars” years are clamoring for a decreased military budget
further indicates the need to cut Pentagon spending
immediately.

You may wonder why students should care about extravagant
military spending. Well, since our federal government still has
limited funds to distribute, more money for the military translates
directly into less money for education and other social services.
Currently, our federal government allots only 1.8 percent of its
total budget for education, which is divided between primary,
secondary and higher education programs (United States Student
Association). If the military’s budget were cut, the needs of
more children could be met, more schools could be built, and
America’s decrepit public education system could be
revamped.

More money for schools and education translates directly into
increased access to education. Why? Well, an increased education
budget means better K-12 education as well as more federal
financial aid and strengthened outreach and retention programs.
More specifically, K-12 programs could afford more competent,
effective teachers, more class materials such as books, markers and
other necessary supplies, and more programs, including advanced
placement classes and standardized test preparation courses. In
turn, these programs would provide more students with access to
higher education, while an increased federal education budget could
fund the building of more public institutions of higher
education.

To drive home the point, let’s look at money. Clinton
recently projected a $112 billion budget increase for the Pentagon
over the next six years. Meanwhile, the government’s General
Accounting Office has estimated that it would cost at least $112
billion to renovate and upgrade American schools (http://www.clw.org). Given that this is
the case, and that analysts have repeatedly assured us that our
military would remain the wealthiest in the world even with a $100
billion budget decrease, how can we possibly justify sustaining
military spending, much less increasing it?

It is important to realize that military spending is funding
some schools. For example, ever heard of the School of the
Americas? Funded by the U.S. military, the school’s operating
annual base budget, which does not include faculty and staff
salaries, is $4.5 million. Based in Ft. Benning, Georgia, the U.S.
School of the Americas is internationally notorious for human
rights abuses, sabotage, espionage, conspiracy and so forth.

Members of the school are trained in brutal military tactics and
have been sent all over the globe to keep the world “safe for
Americans.” According to the nonprofit School of the Americas
Watch (http://www.saow.org), the
U.S. School of the Americas has undermined fledgling democracies,
murdered innocent civilians and terrorized members of the
international community. Why are we paying for this? Does this have
anything whatsoever to do with “national security?”

Now more than ever, it is imperative for America to set an
international example and actively promote social development over
military waste. It is time that our federal budget priorities award
school children and overworked teachers rather than powerful
lobbyists representing nuclear arms manufacturers. In order to
reverse current spending trends, we must consciously seek to align
our actions with an ideology of peace and diplomacy rather than a
mindless policy of rampant and unnecessary military spending.

In late 1999, journalist Ramon-Luis Acuna noted that “the
world as a whole spends around $825 billion a year on
defense” (Le Monde Diplomatique, November 1999). This means
that the United States’ military budget accounts for more
than one-third of the defense spending in the entire world. In the
same article, Acuna reproduces a quote from Federico Mayor, the
director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, which aims to create “a culture of
peace.” Mayor describes recent wars and rampant global
militarization simply, stating that they are “a setback to
our generation’s plans for civilization, and a terrible
disappointment to all who want not only more peace but … greater
harmony between the world’s citizens.”

In response to Mayor, I invite the world’s citizens to
promote a culture of peace by ending unnecessary defense spending
internationally. For starters, there’s no place like
home.